Arguably the most important case involving Religious Liberty
which reached the Supreme Court of the US
is Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878).
This case held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.
Accordingly, the President may examine whether or not
there are any criminal activities under the color of religious duty.
In the case above the plaintiff maintained that he had a religious duty to marry more that one wife,
which violated the anti-bigamy provision of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.
Plaintiff George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon). He had married Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory. He was a notable in the church, a secretary to Brigham Young, and subjected himself to test the federal statute to outlaw polygamy. His prior conviction had been overturned on technical grounds.

This case is important because it arguably is a precedent to the right of the government to prohibit criminal conduct under the color of Religion.

It may be necessary, in my view, to begin with an empirical finding
that there have been, and continue to be, criminal acts and activities
under the banner of Religious duty,
and that the particular religion under which such criminal acts and activities,
was, and continues to be, Islam.

This is not an attempt to disparage Islam as a Religion;
but to establish that criminal acts and activities
have in fact occurred in the name of Islam.
That would be the grounds for Profiling Islamist acts and Muslim perpetrators;
for example, the 19 Muslims who executed the crime of 9/11
are to be studied as criminals in the name of the Islamic religion.

Clearly, we are to avoid here the charge of Islamophobia
by Muslim American activities
who will certainly cry McCarthyism,
and invoke the memory of the
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), a committee (1938–75).
However, the White House is the President's Office,
unlike the House committee above which is a division of Congress,
over which hangs the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
which the US Supreme Court may find unconstitutional
if Congress, rather than the President,
created and convened the body.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address: (optional)

Title of Comments:

Comments:

Mark my comment as a response to Religious Establishment Disclaimer by Robert

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".